FCC chair threatens broadcast licenses as Trump criticizes Iran war coverage

essentialsaltes · Mar 15, 2026

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr threatened to revoke broadcast licenses on Saturday, echoing criticism from President Trump over media coverage of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.

"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions - also known as the fake news - have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up," Carr said on social media, in part. "The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not."

The FCC chair did not name specific networks or cite any stories he believes were reported incorrectly.

This is just an effort to chill the free speech of the press. No actual 'violations' -- just angrily pounding the shoe on the podium in the hopes they will censor themselves to please the president.

--

ETA: Trump appears to be proud of his attacks on free speech.

rjs330 · Mar 15, 2026

The media has lost its collective mind. Instead of giving us news it has been giving us propeganda, lies and distortions in order to SHAPE the thoughts of Americans.

The so called attacks on free speech are either defunding organizations that we should not be funding. Or calling out those who do the above. Let's face it. Both the left and the right have tried to silence the opposition by accusing them of the above. Sometimes it IS warranted. Other times its just a matter of opinion. And many of us do not like the opinions of others.

Opinions are one thing. News organizations doing the above is something else entirely.

Pointing out the falsities, distortions and dis or misinformation of opinion shows is just American. And if someone gets fired for their stupidity then oh well. Organizations have the right to do that.

But for heaven's sake, if you are claiming to be NEWS then be honest and factual. If you aren't then take the heat.

RDKirk · Mar 15, 2026

rjs330 said:
The media has lost its collective mind. Instead of giving us news it has been giving us propeganda, lies and distortions in order to SHAPE the thoughts of Americans.

The so called attacks on free speech are either defunding organizations that we should not be funding. Or calling out those who do the above. Let's face it. Both the left and the right have tried to silence the opposition by accusing them of the above. Sometimes it IS warranted. Other times its just a matter of opinion. And many of us do not like the opinions of others.

Opinions are one thing. News organizations doing the above is something else entirely.

Pointing out the falsities, distortions and dis or misinformation of opinion shows is just American. And if someone gets fired for their stupidity then oh well. Organizations have the right to do that.

But for heaven's sake, if you are claiming to be NEWS then be honest and factual. If you aren't then take the heat.

The concept of "disinterested journalism" was a post-WWII phenomenon. Prior to WWII, nobody expected the media to be disinterest, everyone expected to read several different newspapers to get an understanding of what might be true.

"Disinterested journalism" was a concept that was born in the late 40s and died in the late 60s.

FreeinChrist · Mar 15, 2026

So much for the 1st amendment. This should go to court.

rjs330 · Mar 15, 2026

RDKirk said:
The concept of "disinterested journalism" was a post-WWII phenomenon. Prior to WWII, nobody expected the media to be disinterest, everyone expected to read several different newspapers to get an understanding of what might be true.

"Disinterested journalism" was a concept that was born in the late 40s and died in the late 60s.

People back rhen were not also bombarded 24/7 with "news" and opinions from the news. You got your local paper and then whatever news came on rhe radio at certain times or the television at 5 and 10 for an hour. The news didn't have a ton of time for editorialising and spreading of propeganda, mis and dis formation. Now the media's whole aspect is to spread whatever political agenda they want and call it disinterested journalism with no agenda. Being challenged for it is okay with me.

Pommer · Mar 15, 2026

rjs330 said:
People back rhen were not also bombarded 24/7 with "news" and opinions from the news. You got your local paper and then whatever news came on rhe radio at certain times or the television at 5 and 10 for an hour. The news didn't have a ton of time for editorialising and spreading of propeganda, mis and dis formation. Now the media's whole aspect is to spread whatever political agenda they want and call it disinterested journalism with no agenda. Being challenged for it is okay with me.

If we can change rights because technology has advanced, what perils might the Second Amendment face?

Tuur · Mar 16, 2026

RDKirk said:
The concept of "disinterested journalism" was a post-WWII phenomenon. Prior to WWII, nobody expected the media to be disinterest, everyone expected to read several different newspapers to get an understanding of what might be true.

"Disinterested journalism" was a concept that was born in the late 40s and died in the late 60s.

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.'
- Thomas Jefferson.

It's a bit hazy, but I think the Trump administration is about to run up on something inconvenient: there is no official US declaration of war on Iran. Granted that declared wars have been the exception rather than the rule in US conflicts, without a formal declaration of war, declaring wartime powers under "clear and present danger" to national security is going to be a tad difficult. As an example, will point to US media during the Vietnam War vs US media during World War I and World War II, our last declared wars.

Tuur · Mar 16, 2026

rjs330 said:
People back rhen were not also bombarded 24/7 with "news" and opinions from the news. You got your local paper and then whatever news came on rhe radio at certain times or the television at 5 and 10 for an hour. The news didn't have a ton of time for editorialising and spreading of propeganda, mis and dis formation. Now the media's whole aspect is to spread whatever political agenda they want and call it disinterested journalism with no agenda. Being challenged for it is okay with me.

Oh, they were, but at a slower pace. One of the first things someone did if they were going to try to influence public opinion was to put up a newspaper. Seriously. So you had limited access, other than letters, of any sort of information except through rumor, newspapers, pamphlets, and books. Control the local newspaper and you controlled the flow of information. The only difference is speed, and even there, if you look at how the US Constitution makes it hard to adopt amendments on the spur of the moment, there was the element of being swayed by the feelings of the moment.

Case in point are the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Adopted out of fear that the US would have its own version of the French Revolution, it was used by John Adams and the Federalists to attack political opponents. Had it not been for the fear of the moment, they never would have passed at all.

Tuur · Mar 16, 2026

FreeinChrist said:
So much for the 1st amendment. This should go to court.

Everything goes to court. The term is meaningless now.

The 1st Amendment argument is interesting because the FCC has long had the position that since radio and television frequencies are a limited resource they must be regulated, and that regulation gives them the power to control speech. Which is why we don't have those cool cigarette ads on TV anymore. It's also why George Carlin's Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television had a basis in truth.

So assuming (as it likely) that this goes to court, it could open a 55 gallon drum of worms about other FCC censorship. And that will be entertaining to watch, though the results will likely lead to things many rather not see on "free" TV.

wing2000 · Mar 16, 2026

Tuur said:
Everything goes to court. The term is meaningless now.

...it's not meaningless unless you are giving up on the 3rd branch of government.

We'll see if Carr follows through on his threats. In any case, no American official should ever make such an un-American threat to the free press.

d taylor · Mar 16, 2026

-

The media liberal and conservative are just as corrupt as governmnet.

wing2000 · Mar 16, 2026

rjs330 said:
The media has lost its collective mind. Instead of giving us news it has been giving us propeganda, lies and distortions in order to SHAPE the thoughts of Americans.

The so called attacks on free speech are either defunding organizations that we should not be funding. Or calling out those who do the above. Let's face it. Both the left and the right have tried to silence the opposition by accusing them of the above. Sometimes it IS warranted. Other times its just a matter of opinion. And many of us do not like the opinions of others.

Opinions are one thing. News organizations doing the above is something else entirely.

Pointing out the falsities, distortions and dis or misinformation of opinion shows is just American. And if someone gets fired for their stupidity then oh well. Organizations have the right to do that.

But for heaven's sake, if you are claiming to be NEWS then be honest and factual. If you aren't then take the heat.

Cite one example from the war reporting of the WSJ or NYT:

“The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (in particular), and other Lowlife “Papers” and Media actually want us to lose the War. Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts! They are truly sick and demented people that have no idea the damage they cause the United States of America. Fortunately, as proven by our Great and Conclusive Election Win in 2024, the People of our Country understand what is happening far better than the Fake News Media!”

essentialsaltes · Mar 16, 2026

d taylor said:
-

The media liberal and conservative are just as corrupt as governmnet.

Even if they were, The First Amendment gives them the right to print their stories.

Tuur · Mar 16, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
Even if they were, The First Amendment gives them the right to print their stories.

FCC doesn’t have a say over print media. Be that as it may, print, film, and broadcast media have been subject to censorship in wartime, as seen during WWI and WWII. Since WWIi was the last declaration of war, saying that we’re in wartime could be a stretch.

RDKirk · Mar 16, 2026

Tuur said:
FCC doesn’t have a say over print media. Be that as it may, print, film, and broadcast media have been subject to censorship in wartime, as seen during WWI and WWII. Since WWIi was the last declaration of war, saying that we’re in wartime could be a stretch.

When Congress actually declares war, at the same time they pass numerous wartime laws to support it.

One of the concerns expressed by Eisenhower was that he saw the US being put on permanent wartime footing. For instance, Congress passed the Selective Service Act of 1948, which for the first time authorized a draft in peacetime because of Cold War tensions. That draft lasted until 1972, when Congress finally allowed it to expire. The PATRIOT Act is a similar measure, passed in peacetime.

So, this concept of pressing wartime legal actions during peace has its precedents, which we've been sleeping on as they happened.

DaisyDay · Mar 16, 2026

Tuur said:
Oh, they were, but at a slower pace. One of the first things someone did if they were going to try to influence public opinion was to put up a newspaper. Seriously. So you had limited access, other than letters, of any sort of information except through rumor, newspapers, pamphlets, and books. Control the local newspaper and you controlled the flow of information. The only difference is speed, and even there, if you look at how the US Constitution makes it hard to adopt amendments on the spur of the moment, there was the element of being swayed by the feelings of the moment.

And in addition to the written word, news and opinions were bandied about in the coffeehouses for the serious thinkers and pubs for the rabble.

Tuur said:
Case in point are the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Adopted out of fear that the US would have its own version of the French Revolution, it was used by John Adams and the Federalists to attack political opponents. Had it not been for the fear of the moment, they never would have passed at all.

Fortunately, they didn't stick and serve as a warning to us in the present time.

Akita Suggagaki · Mar 16, 2026

Hermeneutic of suspicion. By now we all have it. But the trouble is we don’t know how to use it. We mistake our own bias, history, and personal culture for some kind of imaginary “truth”. We then suspect anything that does not confirm or align with it.

I think it is good that we no longer naively believe everything that we hear and read. But we don’t give due credit to our bias.

Tuur · Mar 16, 2026

RDKirk said:
So, this concept of pressing wartime legal actions during peace has its precedents, which we've been sleeping on as they happened

Except I keep going back to the 1960s and 1970s and Vietnam. Had a newspaper during WWII run something like the Pentagon Papers or an US actress gone over to visit the Imperial Japanese forces, both would have been charged with treason. If it was something we were sleepwalking into, much of what was in the media during the Vietnam era wouldn’t have happened.

What we have here is more an echo of calls to squelch “misinformation” during both COVID and the Biden Administration. It’s amusing to watch h those who wanted government vetting of speech have a conniption over this, and those who screamed about freedom of speech then suddenly think government oversight of media is entirely proper.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN · Mar 17, 2026

Trump doesn't want people to watch the evils, that Trump has our military doing. By stopping people from hearing the truth about his horrible invasions of other counties. And Trumps other illegal things.

Tuur · Mar 17, 2026

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:
Trump doesn't want people to watch the evils, that Trump has our military doing. By stopping people from hearing the truth about his horrible invasions of other counties. And Trumps other illegal things.

Let us know when they deliberately try to start firestorms as was done in WWII Europe and Japan.

FCC chair threatens broadcast licenses as Trump criticizes Iran war coverage

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads